Skip to main content

The Strength of Tradition

I've been meaning to point out this column by David Warren, who's stuff is always very good. It just dawned on me that I can use it to further explain my post yesterday on the controversy at the Toronto Film Festival. A big quote follows (emphasis mine):

A great advantage of this Christian worldview -- on which our State and nation were founded, and which was once taught in our schools and upheld in law -- was its internal coherence. The greatest minds through twenty centuries had thought through the legal implications, but more profoundly, "discovered" layer behind layer of morality, written into nature. There is a moral order in the world, a law behind human law, and indeed all the "great religions" allow that good is good, and evil evil. Today, none of this is possible, for Christian or any other religious reasoning is ruled out of court, and all judgments must stand or fall on "pure reason". Which is a problem, because pure reason is no more apparent than God or the human soul. Which is to say, absolutely obvious to the eyes of faith, and otherwise invisible. The removal of the postulated God and human soul from public philosophy thus leaves a system of legal reasoning that makes no sense. We have, in effect, a worldview that makes "demonization" illegal, but cannot acknowledge the defining demon. Meanwhile it invents new crimes, and forgets old ones, while flailing about in the de-oxygenated chamber of "pure reason". There were many random directions we could have gone, after the supply of oxygen was cut off, but the one we seem to have hit upon is to define "crime" as belief in the existence of crime itself. The worst human deed is now to demonize something -- a person, group, practice, object, whim, or ... anything at all.
This is exactly right. We are now headed to a place where we have to defend finding a discussion of cat killing offensive, even evil (The film "Casuistry" at the Toronto Film Festival). We have to defend wanting to keep children away from adults who want to drug them and molest them (Robin Sharpe). We have to defend the notion that Criminals should not be allowed to threaten members of the public while in jail (Mark Emory). We have to defend these positions anew because we can't seem to allow ourselves to use tradition as a defense anymore. This is not to say that changes are not possible, but any science student knows that in an experiment you alter only one variable at a time. Otherwise there's no way to follow the chain of causation. Not that science is a model for social issues anyway. Controlling the variables on a society wide scale would involve coercion beyond toleration and (thank goodness) our abilities. Tradition means evolved solutions to social problems. The idea that we can think up "perfect" solutions is childish, reckless and dangerous. Change must be evolutionary, not revolutionary, or we risk not knowing up from down. We run the of risk having to re-build the wheel, if we can.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi